Naphthalene formation pathways from phenyl radical via vinyl radical (C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>3</sub>) and vinylacetylene (C<sub>4</sub>H<sub>4</sub>): computational studies on reaction mechanisms and kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction mechanisms of PAH formation from phenyl radical (C6H5) to naphthalene via C2H3 (C2H3-Path) and C4H4 (C4H4-Path) were investigated by the G3(MP2, CC) method. The hydrogen abstraction, ring closure, cis–trans isomerization, and disproportionation reactions were considered, as well as their occurred sequence. The results showed that H-abstraction reactions occurred more easily than H-dissociation reactions. The cis–trans conversion reactions in sub-routes of C2H3-Path and C4H4-Path provided the largest barriers of 51, 53, and 36 kcal/mol along their routes, which illustrated that the cis–trans isomerization was energetically costly in the PAH formation process. The entrance barriers of C2H2-Path, C2H3-Path, and C4H4-Path are 6, 8, and 3 kcal/mol, respectively, which indicates that it is easier to add C4H4 to C6H5 compared with adding C2H2 to C2H3. C2H3 additions were highly exothermic with reaction energies greater than 110 kcal/mol, and compared with C2H2 additions, C2H3 additions were irreversible. However, C2H2-Path, C2H3-Path and C4H4-Path involved energy barriers of 20, 32, and 36 kcal/mol, respectively. Considering the high temperature in combustion and the approximate concentrations of C2H3 and C4H4, all three of these pathways could lead to naphthalene in some combustion flames.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".